P L D 2004 Supreme Court 127 (PLP)
Railway Headquarters Office, Lahore — Appellant Versus ABDUL BARI KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2004 Supreme Court 127 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | Railway Headquarters Office, Lahore — Appellant Versus ABDUL BARI KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983), (a) Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Supreme Court 127 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983), (a) Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2004 Supreme Court 127 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Supreme Court 127 (PLP) (Railway Headquarters Office, Lahore — Appellant Versus ABDUL BARI KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Satidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in all Cases).
- Nemo. for Respondents.
- 4. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court- on behalf of petitioners when asked as to why the alternate remedy which is equally efficacious could not be availed and why representation against the findings of Wafaqi Mohtasib could not be made to .the President of Pakistan under Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, no plausible justification could be furnished. In fact a futile attempt, hag been made to cover the inefficiency, careless and callous approach of the officers concerned who failed to invoke the provisions as contained in Article 32 of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order; 1983 under the garb of writ petitions which have rightly been dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973); Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme - Court to consider; whether the authorities were debarred from invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution on the ground that they could file representation to the President under the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 and whether in view of Art.9(2) of Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, Wafaqi Mohtasib had the jurisdiction to issue a direction of the nature which were subject-matter of the petition filed by the Authorities.
Arts. 9(2) & 32--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Alternate adequate remedy, non-availing of
Instead of filing appeal under Art.32 of Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, against the order passed by Wafaqi Mohtasib, the Authorities invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Petition was dismissed by High Court on the ground that alternate adequate remedy was available to the Authorities which they did not invoke
Authorities- in the present case, had made a futile attempt before the Supreme Court to cover the inefficiency and careless and callous approach of the officers concerned who failed to invoke the provisions as contained in Art.32 of Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, under the garb of Constitutional petition which had rightly -been dismissed
Orders of Wafaqi Mohtasib and High Court being well-based and unexceptionable, did not warrant interference.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
The above captioned appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as similar questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The writ petitions preferred on behalf of Pakistan Railways have been dismissed vide orders impugned and findings of The Wafaqi Ombudsman dated 28-3-1998 have been kept intact whereby the respondents who are Traffic. Inspectors (Retd.) Railways were allowed Air-conditioned Sleeper Passes.
3. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 22-4-1999 which is reproduced hereinbelow to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy:-- "By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against the, judgment dated 31-7-1998 and dated 29-7-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petitions Nds.15549, 15542 and 15328 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) inter alia directing the issuance of Air-Conditioned Sleeper Pass to the respondent having pensioner beneficiary, dismissing the same on the ground that petitioner had alternate remedy by way of representation to the President under Article 9(2) of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following questions:-- (i) Whether the petitioner was debarred from invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that he could file representation to the President under the above Order? and (ii) Whether in view of the clause (2) of Article 9 of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, .1983, the Wafaqi Mohtasib had the jurisdiction to issue a direction of the nature which are subject-matter of the petition, filed by the petitioners?"
4. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court- on behalf of petitioners when asked as to why the alternate remedy which is equally efficacious could not be availed and why representation against the findings of Wafaqi Mohtasib could not be made to .the President of Pakistan under Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, no plausible justification could be furnished. In fact a futile attempt, hag been made to cover the inefficiency, careless and callous approach of the officers concerned who failed to invoke the provisions as contained in Article 32 of the Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order; 1983 under the garb of writ petitions which have rightly been dismissed. The orders impugned being well-based and unexceptionable hardly warrants interference. The appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs. M.H./P-117/S Appeal dismissed.